Parties, Parity and Conflict

I’ve seen numerous opinions regarding party dynamics. Many of them essentially mandating party members are friendly with each other and supportive. A symbiotic relationship is best in the minds of many. Introductory rule systems espouse the same logic: A party comprised of X, Y, and Z are necessary to undertake this adventure.

The hive mindset is unnatural to me. I think it is often limiting. I see no need to be friends with party members if they have differing goals than I do. A character can easily coexist with others for a short amount of time because it is beneficial. My enemy’s enemy is my friend….right now..

So many examples come to mind. I’ll start with party balance based on classes within D&D. Basically, all the published material espouses the need for class balance within a party. You need a thief, mage, cleric and a fighter at a minimum to achieve parity. Why? Running games based on the recommendations is easier initially from the balance. It’s also rather dull after a few years.

From the player perspective, the balance approached has been indoctrinated. Most games we play require it to achieve success. GM’s reinforce the balanced approach because they start by requiring it from lack of experience and then are obligated to keep all the characters involved so balance the adventures. The feedback cycle continues until it is ingrained.

More egregious, most DM’s force goal alignment down the throat of the characters. Doing so can snuff the life out of developing a character based only upon your planned campaign. Plans are only good up until implementation. If the players sit down and create 6 dwarves with intertwined backgrounds, can you honestly send them into battle against dwarves that are rising up against humans? Unlikely to happen if you constrained the choices available before character generation but plausible if you put them in an open sandbox.

Many systems, and GM’s also suggest or mandate that the characters all be white hats. The characters are going to undertake the campaign because they are the good guys and some bad guy needs thumped. Let me get out the scissors and carve some cardboard. Alignments in D&D propagate the idea.

Well, I’m lawful good, so I always have to play that way. Nope. If I’m playing a lawful good character and the DM has bad guys kidnap my daughter, I’m going to respond based on raw emotion, not ideals. I’ll hope my chosen god supports me along the way or forgives me in the end. There is no fixed bucket to what a player should be allowed to do or negative impact if she exceeds a certain limitation. You can judge based on overall interaction but the instantaneous, emotional response defies bucketizing.

Party conflicts are often quashed by many GM’s. Why? Is it really necessary to mandate? I played in essentially a 2-player campaign where my cohort was so paranoid of my character killing him, the other party put a massive amount of effort toward thwarting any intrusion into his home. Granted my character used whoever he could to achieve the goals he desired…not the party goals. I’d never considered turning against my party member but in the back of his mind, it was likely.

The same player later played a guy in a campaign who was wretched toward other player’s characters. “What have you done for me lately?” was the question always in the back of his character’s mind. So many PC’s died at his hand, I cannot count them. Yet, those same players kept making new characters and playing. Or trying to play again and again.

The best party dynamics I have experienced come not from planning but from differences. Kevin’s Top Secret campaign is an example. We generated characters based on a blank slate. In the end, the players within the party were very intertwined but also very self reliant. Rarely did we call each other for support. Instead, we called in the others to maximize impact.

Take the opportunity to thumb your nose to the expected and play purely off the players. You will be rewarded.

Dare I ask, what do you really want to play?

Twice annually, a small number of us gather for what we dub Convergence. Convergence is a long weekend where we gather at in a central location and game for as many hours as we can fit into the weekend. The first one was pretty ad-hoc. Other than a plan for when and where, none of us formulated a plan for the actual games to be played.

The second attempt was more organized. Instead of Friday night & Saturday, we arrived on Thursday night to have an additional full day. We had a plan for who was running and what system it was. A little forethought let us skip character generation to maximize on the on-site gaming time. In the end we ended up playing one of the pre-planned games and an ad-hoc short session of another game. The end result was far more enjoyable than the first attempt.

During a phone conversation, Kevin stated it would be far better to ask the players who and what they want to play rather than selecting a system by the GM based upon what he wants to run. It makes complete sense. The number of players outnumber the singular GM. Maximizing enjoyment for the majority should always be a priority. After all, when players have interest in the game, it ends up being a better session/campaign and gives each of them the opportunity to toss in some Rule of Cool.

So we’re going to pose the question to everyone planning to attend in the spring. What do you want to play? It won’t be quite that simple. Instead, I’ll be reaching back into a very introspective era when Kevin and I were actively debating the pros and cons of gaming systems, rules, settings and most importantly role playing.

1. Considering all the characters you have played over your gaming career, can you identify a specific one who didn’t reach the potential you envisioned? Or has there been a persona you’ve always wanted to play but have never quite had the opportunity?
2. With that character in mind, what is the ideal scenario, setting, or campaign that would fit the goals and motivations you have envisioned? What did you want to endeavour but didn’t get the chance to undertake? What would fulfil the character concept?

Note the absence of a rule system. Rule systems are just a framework we play by. Someone responding with a rule system didn’t really consider the question. Certainly, rules are useful and necessary in the majority of situations. Rules are also a barrier. A barrier most never recognize. Fewer still can play without rules. Pure enjoyment is achieved when player’s don’t ask how to use a die to achieve something. They act, you interpret, and it just keeps flowing. Dice are nice when you need to add the risk of failure but they are not an absolute necessity.

If everyone would start with an real idea of who the character is rather than what it can do based on rules and stats, gaming sessions would be a lot more fun. Ask to play outside of the box. If you hand a GM a character with a rich background and balanced capabilities, asking for a power outside the norm will not be a stretch..

Instead, everyone starts it with “I have stats of X, Y, Z…and P, D, Q” … uhh, guess I’ll play this template because it fits my rolls. The rules just quashed another great character based on dice. At least it could have been a great character. GMs can make template characters come to life but doing so is the exception, not the rule.

Personally, the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had gaming were when the G in RPG was an afterthought. All the play was dominated by goal driven role play not by fighting a battle with a foe. Defeating an opponent doesn’t always need to take the form of combat.

I have faith there are many other DMs and players like us. I haven’t yet identified the persona I most want to play in the spring But I’m working on it.

Tickle your imagination… Who, where, what and why would you choose?

Purity or Density

There is a famous quote in software engineering or perhaps engineering in general, the gist of it being “the design is complete when nothing can be removed”.    The point is elegance from simplicity and purity.  No diversions from the focus of the effort.  I cannot find the original source tonight but it matters little.

For the record, apparently it is Antoine de Saint Exupéry who is credited as saying, “A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. ” -KO

Deviation from the core of a system exposes the writer’s passion.  I feel the wanton need to deviate into topics that are not centric to a rule system.  Yet they are interesting to me and relevant to the genre. Looking through many rule systems, I see that many others have wandered down the same path.

When is it appropriate to sanction these departures?   How far do you allow them to progress?   If the deviation leads to an entry that hooks a novice, is it is truly bad?  Puirty provides elegance and the capability of those capable to expand it into many frontiers.

But… Recall that first system you held in your hands.   Likely, it was rules heavy and relayed something about nearly everything on how to play the game.   Just as likely, you tossed aside nearly everything ephemeral to the core of the system because it was impssible to remember or manage.  Still, fun was had by everyone in that first session.

I love light rule systems these days but I’ve had years to progress to that point.   I can tweak it to fit my needs in a matter of minutes and the experienced group I get a rare chance to play with can do the same.   The running of the system might hook someone but if they pick up the “book” is it enough to hook them?

— Ramblings of Mark –